If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

il put it more simply, i believe im just as good at FFA as i am at H2H whatever skill level that is ,the game doesnt change drastically from my point of view.

So did you just get unlucky in the FFA games then? I think you did but thats just me, if you think it is skill then IDK but you have lost a lot more in FFA so its up to you I guess... Whatever you think the reason is...

So did you just get unlucky in the FFA games then? I think you did but thats just me, if you think it is skill then IDK but you have lost a lot more in FFA so its up to you I guess... Whatever you think the reason is...

Well that is rather obvious...in FFA you have more opponents and there is a 3rd and 4th place as well. You have to beat more people to win and since 2nd 3rd and 4th all count as a loss the probability that your record will be worse in FFA makes sense.

Also, your own record represents the same thing...you were 10-2 in h2h last i checked and that is much better than your ffa record. packrat, myself, and most people are in a similar situation.

It is quite simple: In FFA there are 4 players. In H2H there are 2. So you have to beat 2 more players in FFA to win. So do your opponents. Of course you are going to win less games in FFA due to the variance in the game. You cannot always overcome that with skill since at least one of the other 3 players will have a much better start when yours is crappy.

Does this mean FFA is more about skill than H2H - not really. In H2H, you can overcome a bad start with skill, in FFA you might be stuck with your bad start if there are enough decent players in the room.

I am pretty sure that most of the guys who have a stellar FFA record hardly ever play with more than one other decent player in the game (if at all). Playing against 3 kittens does not tell you anything. Playing against 1 good guy and 2 kittens can be more difficult than H2h. But can also be much easier since there are many players out there that are worse than the AI and they preferably play FFA (quick match). And there is only one AI to grab. So whoever starts close to it, gets an advantage.

There are strategies that work better in FFA that have little merit in H2H. But you cannot always turtle and watch the others kill each other if one of those guys is bringing the fight to you even if you don´t want to. Then you are stuck with wasting your resources on defending and watch somebody else take off in tech etc. Not fair, is it? Or what if two of the other guys team up on you?

I am really tired of reading how "FFA players" discredit the opinion of "H2H players" which in their minds equals "established forum members" just by categorically denying every point and not really providing reasonable info other than personal opinion in bold font with exclamation marks as absolute statements.

Also the whole luck thing is annoying. Yes, many game summaries refer to battle luck or starting positions. But it still takes skill to leverage that properly. "If my KA had won that even battle..." There have most likely been many more decisions taken before it even gets to that battle and you probably could have taken another route (horses, legions, cats, expansion, ...). Or could have simply brought more force. So maybe that one battle that you deemed so crucial, could have been avoided by better play. Nobody ever talks about that.

I am by no means saying that the right decisions always work in your favor. Sometimes you are just losing too many battles that should not have been lost, but in most cases it is not battle luck that ultimately decides the game, it is you choosing the wrong battles or the wrong timing for them or the wrong city for your attack.

It is quite simple: In FFA there are 4 players. In H2H there are 2. So you have to beat 2 more players in FFA to win. So do your opponents. Of course you are going to win less games in FFA due to the variance in the game. You cannot always overcome that with skill since at least one of the other 3 players will have a much better start when yours is crappy.

Does this mean FFA is more about skill than H2H - not really. In H2H, you can overcome a bad start with skill, in FFA you might be stuck with your bad start if there are enough decent players in the room.

I am pretty sure that most of the guys who have a stellar FFA record hardly ever play with more than one other decent player in the game (if at all). Playing against 3 kittens does not tell you anything. Playing against 1 good guy and 2 kittens can be more difficult than H2h. But can also be much easier since there are many players out there that are worse than the AI and they preferably play FFA (quick match). And there is only one AI to grab. So whoever starts close to it, gets an advantage.

There are strategies that work better in FFA that have little merit in H2H. But you cannot always turtle and watch the others kill each other if one of those guys is bringing the fight to you even if you don´t want to. Then you are stuck with wasting your resources on defending and watch somebody else take off in tech etc. Not fair, is it? Or what if two of the other guys team up on you?

I am really tired of reading how "FFA players" discredit the opinion of "H2H players" which in their minds equals "established forum members" just by categorically denying every point and not really providing reasonable info other than personal opinion in bold font with exclamation marks as absolute statements.

Also the whole luck thing is annoying. Yes, many game summaries refer to battle luck or starting positions. But it still takes skill to leverage that properly. "If my KA had won that even battle..." There have most likely been many more decisions taken before it even gets to that battle and you probably could have taken another route (horses, legions, cats, expansion, ...). Or could have simply brought more force. So maybe that one battle that you deemed so crucial, could have been avoided by better play. Nobody ever talks about that.

I am by no means saying that the right decisions always work in your favor. Sometimes you are just losing too many battles that should not have been lost, but in most cases it is not battle luck that ultimately decides the game, it is you choosing the wrong battles or the wrong timing for them or the wrong city for your attack.

More real talk from REM0....this entire post sums up everything I have been trying to say....

Also the whole luck thing is annoying. Yes, many game summaries refer to battle luck or starting positions. But it still takes skill to leverage that properly. "If my KA had won that even battle..." There have most likely been many more decisions taken before it even gets to that battle and you probably could have taken another route (horses, legions, cats, expansion, ...). Or could have simply brought more force. So maybe that one battle that you deemed so crucial, could have been avoided by better play. Nobody ever talks about that.

Battle luck is no where near the biggest luck factor in the game... Not even close, in fact it is one of the last luck factors really... I suppose paying off the Mongols was a wise decision when I had them eliminate you ehh? All skill It should be obvious but I'm being sarcastic for people who are a little slower

Done with this thread... But REM0 said it the clearest to me. I just know when there is conversation about some dang luck, Ill stick to the sidelines as I used to do before I came to the forums. Guarantee the next people throwing luck into the equation of a game (Civ Rev) they discrediting any skill that person has/had to make a decision or not but stick to himself or whatever but the person claiming luck simply feels he should always win. It stays HILARIOUS people who rage quit, get silent after they were talking, cuss a storm or start making excuses when the game looks bleak. I have been victim to probably getting a bit silent because Im focusing but when people don't even answer anything someone says after the game is over... too funny. You win in this game and ya lose. Some people think they GOT to win every time and find some oblivious factor to blame it on when probably your decision weighed more heavily than what you determined luck.

Done with this thread... But REM0 said it the clearest to me. I just know when there is conversation about some dang luck, Ill stick to the sidelines as I used to do before I came to the forums. Guarantee the next people throwing luck into the equation of a game (Civ Rev) they discrediting any skill that person has/had to make a decision or not but stick to himself or whatever but the person claiming luck simply feels he should always win. It stays HILARIOUS people who rage quit, get silent after they were talking, cuss a storm or start making excuses when the game looks bleak. I have been victim to probably getting a bit silent because Im focusing but when people don't even answer anything someone says after the game is over... too funny. You win in this game and ya lose. Some people think they GOT to win every time and find some oblivious factor to blame it on when probably your decision weighed more heavily than what you determined luck.

I know I have been occasionally guilty of throwing the"L" word out there when I get beat but mainly because I am upset I lost. I try not to lose my cool but sometimes it can't be helped but I try to make it right with the person

I know I have been occasionally guilty of throwing the"L" word out there when I get beat but mainly because I am upset I lost. I try not to lose my cool but sometimes it can't be helped but I try to make it right with the person

Well it doesn't offend me at all. Some people it really pisses off though which is why i stopped saying it as much...

Well it doesn't offend me at all. Some people it really pisses off though which is why i stopped saying it as much...

lol that is a shocker that it doesn't offend you. you are the biggest offender of the "L" word ever on this forum. You are responsible for most of the vocalization of the "L" word arguments. though i do appreciate that you have slowed down on the constant use of the word/excuse

lol that is a shocker that it doesn't offend you. you are the biggest offender of the "L" word ever on this forum. You are responsible for most of the vocalization of the "L" word arguments. though i do appreciate that you have slowed down on the constant use of the word/excuse

I don't consider it an excuse, just more of a fact at least thats the way I see it. When I mess up and lose I like learning from those situations, but if I can't control what happens and losing is inevitable then the word luck will come up in one way or another... Some people call it skill or fate whatever, I call it luck, get over yourself, I say the same thing when I get lucky so no need for people to ☺☺☺☺☺ about it. Does it make people feel better if I say "I got unlucky" rather than saying "you got lucky"? I feel if I had the resources, just to prove a point about how important luck is in this world, I would give you real life examples...